America's Top Ten Dead Cities: From Detroit to New Orleans

[FangKC]

Article discusses America's top ten dead cities. Included on the list are:

Buffalo, New York -- population drop from 500,000 to 250,000.
Flint, Michigan  -- population drop from 200,000 to 100,000.
Hartford, Connecticut  -- population drop from 177,000 to 124,000.
Cleveland, Ohio  -- population drop from 914,000 to 480,000.
New Orleans, Louisiana  -- population drop from peak of 627,000 to 250,000 because of Katrina. Population has rebounded to 337,000.
Detroit, Michigan  -- population drop from 1.9 million to 911,000.
Albany, New York  -- population drop from 134,000 to 95,000.
Atlantic City, New Jersey  -- population drop from 66,000 to 36,000.
Allentown, Pennsylvania  -- No population loss. Population in 2008 was 111,000 and highest in city's history. It appears ranking is based on decline of economic base because of loss of heavy industry and steel production.
Galveston, Texas  -- Once considered the richest city in America, this city suffered from its' decline as a port city to Houston, and frequent hurricanes and loss of its' tourism industry. The population hasn't dropped, but the economic power of the city has.

http://247wallst.com/2010/08/23/america ... w-orleans/

I'm sort of surprised that St. Louis is not on this list, since it still has the distinction of being the city with the most dramatic population loss from its' peak -- a 59 percent loss, which is higher than Detroit at 46 percent.

I don't think of Hartford or Albany as dead cities as much as I do Gary, Indiana, Newark, NJ, and Camden, NJ.

To compare, Kansas City, Missouri, has only had a 6.1 percent decline in population from the height at 507,000 in 1970 to 476,000 presently.

[nilsson1941]

Kansas City should still be considered a dead city because the urban core is dead compared to 60 years ago. If St. Louis has annexed a whole bunch of land it would appear less dead on paper.

[dangerboy]

Fang,

KCMO is at 483,000, not 475. Re: St. Louis, population wasn't the only criteria.  Despite the population loss, St. Louis hasn't lost as much in employment, manufacturing, and overall wealth as other cities on the list.

[KCMax]

Coming soon:

Sacramento, California
Las Vegas, Nevada

[FangKC]

I was just using the population number announced in 2009 that was reported on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City,_Missouri

[GRID]

Didn't KCMO have 507,000 before they annexed most of the northland?

Most of those other cities are pretty landlocked.  Considering KCMO probably had 500k in half the area it is today and if it were still landlocked it would be like 250k today.

The Northland and far southland has half of KCMO's population today.

KCMO is the only giant sprawling city that still lost people for like four decades and even today doesn't keep up with similar sprawling cities that have annexed a lot of land.

Not good...

[mlind]

I'm surprised about Albany NY and the other mention of Sacramento CA since they are both state capitols.

I think all of the rust belt cities are in trouble due to the decline/loss of industry.

From my observation, KCK must be a dead city, too.  It sure doesn't look like the city I grew up in.

[KCMax]

I'm surprised about Albany NY and the other mention of Sacramento CA since they are both state capitols.

State government jobs are getting cut left and right in this economy. I could be wrong, but I thought I read the latest job numbers actually showed a gain in private sector jobs, but the staggering amount of losses in the public sector, particularly in state governments, led to big job losses. In any case, state governments are facing enormous deficits, California is in dire economic straits, and the entire city of Sacramento is based on state government. Add in the fact they are already foreclosure city, and its a bad combo for that town.

[moderne]

GRID, KC was 507,000 in 1970, 15-20 years after the northland annexations.

[GRID]

GRID, KC was 507,000 in 1970, 15-20 years after the northland annexations.

In 1940, the city had over 400,000 residents.  That same area today has well under 200,000.  KCMO has suffered just as much, if not more than cities that get all the attention (StLouis, Cleveland, Buffalo etc).

[nilsson1941]

In 1940, the city had over 400,000 residents.  That same area today has well under 200,000.  KCMO has suffered just as much, if not more than cities that get all the attention (StLouis, Cleveland, Buffalo etc).

I keep trying to tell people this. They won't listen. Not that I am proud of it, but its just a fact.

[aknowledgeableperson]

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City,_Missouri

In 1940, the city had about 400,000 residents; by 2000, the same area was home to only about 180,000. From 1940 to 1960, the city more than doubled its physical size, while increasing its population by only about 75,000. By 1970, the city had a total area of approximately 316 square miles (820 km2), more than five times its size in 1940

[warwickland]

I keep trying to tell people this. They won't listen. Not that I am proud of it, but its just a fact.

Why?

I'm sort of surprised that St. Louis is not on this list, since it still has the distinction of being the city with the most dramatic population loss from its' peak -- a 59 percent loss, which is higher than Detroit at 46 percent.

St. Louis was extremely crowded and probably poorer than Detroit, which was a single family home paradise. Overall, St. Louis is certainly less physically damaged than Detroit, so I'm guessing that even though St. Louis has a more dramatic population loss than Detroit, it affected the city to a lesser extent. A lot of rehabs in my neighborhood are conversions from 2 flats to single family. My neighborhood is far below the peak population, yet there are almost no vacant properties. St. Louis gets the shaft when it comes to bad numbers more than almost any other city I can think of, not to mention I-70 runs through (and helped cause) the absolute worst area of St. Louis.

[nilsson1941]

Why?

Why? Urban history is an area of study of mine and I focused on KC the past Semester. A lot of discussions about dead cities.

[voltopt]

I keep trying to tell people this. They won't listen. Not that I am proud of it, but its just a fact.

I agree.

[warwickland]

Why? Urban history is an area of study of mine and I focused on KC the past Semester. A lot of discussions about dead cities.

No problem, just curious, I'm rather interested in and obsessed with the perceptions people have of places. I'm not saying I'm advocating suppressing information - it's just that nationally KC is so lucky that it doesn't have the same kind of population decline baggage.

[Highlander]

Article discusses America's top ten dead cities. Included on the list are:

Buffalo, New York -- population drop from 500,000 to 250,000.
Flint, Michigan  -- population drop from 200,000 to 100,000.
Hartford, Connecticut  -- population drop from 177,000 to 124,000.
Cleveland, Ohio  -- population drop from 914,000 to 480,000.
New Orleans, Louisiana  -- population drop from peak of 627,000 to 250,000 because of Katrina. Population has rebounded to 337,000.
Detroit, Michigan  -- population drop from 1.9 million to 911,000.
Albany, New York  -- population drop from 134,000 to 95,000.
Atlantic City, New Jersey  -- population drop from 66,000 to 36,000.
Allentown, Pennsylvania  -- No population loss. Population in 2008 was 111,000 and highest in city's history. It appears ranking is based on decline of economic base because of loss of heavy industry and steel production.
Galveston, Texas  -- Once considered the richest city in America, this city suffered from its' decline as a port city to Houston, and frequent hurricanes and loss of its' tourism industry. The population hasn't dropped, but the economic power of the city has.

http://247wallst.com/2010/08/23/america ... w-orleans/

I'm sort of surprised that St. Louis is not on this list, since it still has the distinction of being the city with the most dramatic population loss from its' peak -- a 59 percent loss, which is higher than Detroit at 46 percent.

I don't think of Hartford or Albany as dead cities as much as I do Gary, Indiana, Newark, NJ, and Camden, NJ.

To compare, Kansas City, Missouri, has only had a 6.1 percent decline in population from the height at 507,000 in 1970 to 476,000 presently.

Things could be getting hot again for New Orleans. Currently, the Hurricane Center is putting Isaac's landfall a bit east of NO but several models forecast a direct hit.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/files/2012 ... rent-1.png

[missingkc]

One factor among many in KC's loss: houses that had been sub-divided into apartments (following WWII, I think - maybe during the depression) were forced to reduce units in the '70s. Case in point, of which I have first hand knowledge, house in Janssen Place that had 5 kitchens was forced by city to tear out 3. In addition to reduction in units, the housing of boarders has largely passed from fashion.

[FangKC]

Another factor is that many households in older parts of Kansas City are occupied by retirees who don't have children at home any longer, and also the rise in the number of single people owning and occupying houses instead of families. For example, my house and my neighbor's are identical. I live in my house alone, and my neighbor has three people living there.

[chingon]

One factor among many in KC's loss: houses that had been sub-divided into apartments (following WWII, I think - maybe during the depression) were forced to reduce units in the '70s. Case in point, of which I have first hand knowledge, house in Janssen Place that had 5 kitchens was forced by city to tear out 3. In addition to reduction in units, the housing of boarders has largely passed from fashion.

Many people are unaware, both here and elsewhere on the city-nerd corner of the internet, just how many of what appear to be single family homes in midtown and the east KC are subdivided into multi-family units (usually 2, but sometimes smaller apts.)